WWWTT Posted June 27, 2013 Report Share Posted June 27, 2013 A lot of people never thought this would ever happen! Possibly because it never happens often,coupled with the fact that the conservatives have embraced partisan politics to an almost embarrassing level http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservative-dominated-senate-blocks-union-disclosure-bill/article12826672/ I personally believe that the bill was a "dead man walking" from the start so I'm not surprised by this. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted June 27, 2013 Report Share Posted June 27, 2013 A lot of people never thought this would ever happen! Possibly because it never happens often,coupled with the fact that the conservatives have embraced partisan politics to an almost embarrassing level http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservative-dominated-senate-blocks-union-disclosure-bill/article12826672/ I personally believe that the bill was a "dead man walking" from the start so I'm not surprised by this. WWWTT It's going back to the House, and Harper's going to make it a government bill instead of a private member's bill. Tory senators are 'expected' (ie, ordered) to support government bills. Harper is furious I'm sure, determined to damage unions any way he can and now likely also determined to punish and destroy the 22 Tory senators who didn't bend to his wishes. They deserve a lot of credit for risking his wrath. Nice to see Senators actually doing their job instead of rubber stamping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 27, 2013 Report Share Posted June 27, 2013 I'm waiting for them to open this up to all tax-deductible fees. Let's expose all the doctors and lawyers while we're at it. Hell why not just make everyone's tax returns public domain. We could just setup a website like they do in the States for rapists, where you could lookup your neighbours' incomes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 27, 2013 Report Share Posted June 27, 2013 Tory senators are 'expected' (ie, ordered) to support government bills. No, they're not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 27, 2013 Report Share Posted June 27, 2013 I'm waiting for them to open this up to all tax-deductible fees. Let's expose all the doctors and lawyers while we're at it. Hell why not just make everyone's tax returns public domain. We could just setup a website like they do in the States for rapists, where you could lookup your neighbours' incomes. I don't know that that's quite the same thing. Are not people who're employed in an organisation with unionised employees forced by law to pay union dues, even if they don't want to be part of that union? If a law forces people to pay money to some body, is it wrong for a law to require said body to make its accounting open? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 27, 2013 Report Share Posted June 27, 2013 No, they're not.Except for the time Harper told Conservative Senators that they're expected to support Tory bills, despite him having no authority over them whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 27, 2013 Report Share Posted June 27, 2013 I don't know that that's quite the same thing. Are not people who're employed in an organisation with unionised employees forced by law to pay union dues, even if they don't want to be part of that union? If a law forces people to pay money to some body, is it wrong for a law to require said body to make its accounting open?If someone wants to be a doctor or lawyer they're forced to pay their association fees by law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 27, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2013 I don't know that that's quite the same thing. Are not people who're employed in an organisation with unionised employees forced by law to pay union dues, even if they don't want to be part of that union? If a law forces people to pay money to some body, is it wrong for a law to require said body to make its accounting open? You are not aware of the current circumstance and what bill C-377 requires. Unions already keep the books open for the people who pay dues. Bill c 377 requires to openly publish union books or transactions over 5 000 on the internet! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted June 27, 2013 Report Share Posted June 27, 2013 Possibly because it never happens often,coupled with the fact that the conservatives have embraced partisan politics to an almost embarrassing level Huh? Unions are not popular in Canada. Most unions are in the public sector, and civil servants are not popular now.. ---- Hugh Segal has inadvertently (deliberately?) changed the channel. If Harper wants to pull a Chretien and call an early election in 2014, he has the ingredients: he'll run against the Senate and unions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 27, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2013 Huh? Unions are not popular in Canada. Neither is voting! But 30% of the workforce belongs to a union. This may come back to haunt the conservatives,time will tell. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFCaper Posted June 28, 2013 Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 Are unions currently required to present their financials like churches and charities? I believe that they should eliminate the tax deductions on dues and add GST to the dues. I also believe that this move by the senators is an attempt to justify their jobs. Too bad this is the first time in a while since I have seen a use for the senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 28, 2013 Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 I watched the Parliamentary committee on this and the senate and in the senate they had constitutional lawyers, besides professionals, tell them that the Bill couldn't be passed legally because most of the Bill deals with provincial affairs and some was invading the Rights and Freedoms. In the Parliament Committee, Pierre P. is one of the Tories and just listening to him one can tell he just hates unions. I think, that the Tories want the financially information to be open to workers, so they can have executive body vs workers and try to breakup unions. The Tories keep saying its taxpayers money bit its not what IS taxpayers money to ALL the expenses that MP's have and so when they lead by example and open up ALL of theirs, but then somethings could change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 28, 2013 Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 Are unions currently required to present their financials like churches and charities? I believe that they should eliminate the tax deductions on dues and add GST to the dues. I also believe that this move by the senators is an attempt to justify their jobs. Too bad this is the first time in a while since I have seen a use for the senate. as one expert said to the senate, what's is the difference between a membership and union dues? If you do this for one , you have to do for ALL, like police lawyer, doctors, golf memberships etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlienB Posted June 28, 2013 Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 (edited) IMO if the government needs to know they can get a warrant. If the CRA wants to know they can order an audit. If the public wants to know they can join the union. Lots of corporations that get tax breaks don't disclose their finances publically. The whole idea that since Unions get tax breaks or union donations are tax breaks then their finances should be a public matter is flawed. Well where is the political parties transparency, or church transparency, or businesses that are contracted by the government. There are two sides to payments and not all of it is tax free. Example the person the Union hires may be a private individual., the company they buy from may be a private concern. Organizations may like their details "secret" for trade or undertakings for the purpose of OPSEC. None the less unless I can walk into a local store and ask, I'd like to see your tax records, then the government shouldn't be expecting this for the public to have access to any other private organization. None the less I don't think Union Membership should be forced on people, and I don't think Union Dues should be forced on anyone who isn't a member, none the less in this case it is clear unless I can go up and ask anyone for their tax records, this should be left to the realm of the CRA, the RCMP, the courts, or other relevant areas. Unions are private organizations not public organizations. Remove the tax write off and compulsory membership and get on with life. You can do the same for political parties and churches. Fact is its all less tax money. Let people spend on it cause they want to. Fact is your party, your church, and your union is likely doing nothing for me, I shouldn't be subsidizing them by you getting tax breaks for funding an alternate civil society. And no that isn't saying they are not useful or good organizations.... it is however saying that giving other people write offs is nonsense. Now making certain activities that advance the public good or save the government money, non taxable that is another matter. The premise is all just wrong in how it is done we need an even playing field not, if you support these things we won't tax you. It is just fulfillment of those institutions by stacking the deck in their favour. Without any fundamental justificiation for doing so in a free society. Edited June 28, 2013 by AlienB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 This link sheds some light on the fairness of this bill http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/10/16/tucker-stevens-on-bill-c-377-the-cost-of-transparency/ WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted June 28, 2013 Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 What was such a farce was CBC's Evan had Tory MP Pierre?? on, and he said that even though the senate voted against it , it really does count because Parliament is ELECTED and they aren't and Parliament rules over the senate. Evan then said, what do you mean, you agreed with the senate on the environment bill they passed!!! So if one looks this, IF its okay for the elected officials (PM) to create Bills, appoint Parliament Secretaries, etc, then why is it not right for the PM to also appoint senators, which are usually come from their own party??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 28, 2013 Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 Topaz, I read that three times and I have no idea what you're trying to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted June 28, 2013 Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 I was just thinking.......almost all of Conservatives who opposed the bill were Harper appointees. Could it be that this was an orchestrated event? I think it's plain to see that the Bill - as put together - is bad legislation. Harper knew that. I can't speculate on his motives but I strongly suspect that he knew this would happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 28, 2013 Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 Except for the time Harper told Conservative Senators that they're expected to support Tory bills, despite him having no authority over them whatsoever. Yea, I'm sure he did. But, him saying it and his words having any real meaning are two different things. As you note: He has no authority over them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 28, 2013 Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 If someone wants to be a doctor or lawyer they're forced to pay their association fees by law. Are they? Well, if so, then are the associations' accounts required to be open? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted June 28, 2013 Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 This link sheds some light on the fairness of this bill http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/10/16/tucker-stevens-on-bill-c-377-the-cost-of-transparency/ WWWTT If this bill passes and is challenged in the courts, by the time it gets to the Supremes it could well blow up in their faces and have consequences for all kinds of companies and organizations that they did not foresee and will not like. Seems like a big risk to take just to piss off unions. Not real smart IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 28, 2013 Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 Yea, I'm sure he did. But, him saying it and his words having any real meaning are two different things. As you note: He has no authority over them.His words have meaning, despite them not having legal authority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted June 28, 2013 Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 But 30% of the workforce belongs to a union. This may come back to haunt the conservatives,time will tell. WWWTT 30% of Canada's workforce may belong to a union but that percentage hides the fact that about 80% of public sector employees are unionized (a percentage that is rising), whereas about 15% of private sector employees are unionized (a percentage that is falling). Moreover, many people are often self-employed, contract workers. And many public sector workers disagree with their union but treat the union, and their employment, like going to Mass. IOW, Harper has the makings of a good re-election subtext: he'll win votes by opposing the unelected federal Senate and the public sector unions. Heck, with such a strategy, he may even salvage a few seats in Quebec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 28, 2013 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2013 We'll see come next election. I also feel that the conservatives are trying to reveal the provincial political contributions that unions make. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted June 29, 2013 Report Share Posted June 29, 2013 We'll see come next election. I also feel that the conservatives are trying to reveal the provincial political contributions that unions make. WWWTT In BC, all political contributions over $250 are recorded and available on the government's website. http://www3.elections.bc.ca/index.php/electoral-finance/financial-reports-political-contributions/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.